Honble KOKJE, J. – In these petitions the decision of the respondents to recruit Teachers/ Laboratory Assistants/ Librarians/ Physical Training Instructors for the year 1995-96 through Employment Exchange is under challenge. (2). The petitioners came to know through an advertisement issued by the Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner for the posts of Teachers/Laboratory Assistants/Librarians/Physical Training Instructors for the year 1995-96, that the posts of Teachers in general category would be filled in from amongst the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges alone. This decision has been challenged by the petition- ers on the ground that the recruitment to aforesaid posts is governed by the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (for short `the Rules hereinafter) and therefore a method of recruitment which is not in accordance with the aforesaid Rules cannot be adopted. It is also contended that, the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies), Act 1959 only requires Notification of vacancies and does not provide for sponsoring of candidates for employment by Employment Exchange and does not make it obligatory for the employer to employ only those who are sponsored by the Employment Exchanges. It is further contended that requiring compulsory registration with the Employment Exchange and ge- ting sponsored through the Employment Exchange as a condition to recruitment violates the candidates fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as there is no rational basis for distinguishing a case of a candidate who has applied through the Employment Exchange and the one who has applied directly. It is also argued that the registration with the Employment Exchange being at the District level and as the recruitment is being done at the District level, candidates will be sponsored only district-wise, which will result in introduction of a residential qualification for employment and all the posts in the Districts would be reserved for residents of that particular district alone. It is also contended that the policy adopted would provide for different procedures for recruitment, one for the reserved category and the other for the general category which would be arbitrary and discriminatory. The petitioners also contend that as there are no guidelines, statutory or otherwise, laying down the procedure for sponsoring the candidates by the Employment Exchanges, there will be no uniformity in the procedure followed by the different Employment Exchanges. The petitioners also contend that as there are no guidelines, statutory or otherwise, laying down the procedure for sponsoring the candidates by the Employment Exchanges, there will be no uniformity in the procedure followed by the different Employment Exchanges. The sponsoreship is therefore bound to be not on a rational and uniform basis but would be arbitrary. The policy would virtually convert the Employment Exchanges into the selectors. (3). The respondents on the other hand have taken a stand that the procedure adopted was not against the Recruitment Rules as Rule 16 of the Rules provides for inviting applications by the Commission or the appoint- ing authority by publication in the Rajasthan Gazette or any other method which is considered proper. It was contended that the Government has decided the method of appointing candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges which was perfectly within its power under the aforesaid Rule. It was further contended on behalf of the respondents that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. N. Hargopal and others (1),the Government has power to direct that the vacancies in its departments may be filled through Employment Exchanges and such a direction would not be violative under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It was further contended that in the past it had become almost impossible for the respondents to complete the procedure of recruitment by advertising posts in the Rajasthan Gazette within time as thousands of applications were received for even a smaller number of vacancies and it became difficult to consider all the eligible candidates and select the best amongst them. In order to curtail the number of candidates, the procedure of considering candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges alone was adopted. It was also contended that there was nothing arbitrary or unfair in the procedure being adopted. (4. It would be proper to deal with the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and ors. vs. N. Hargopal and others (supra) cited on behalf of the respondents first. (5). Union of India vs. N. Hargopal and ors. (supra) was not a case in which candidates for employment in a Government Department, were the petitioners. Two questions arose in the case for consideration of the Supreme Court viz. vs. N. Hargopal and others (supra) cited on behalf of the respondents first. (5). Union of India vs. N. Hargopal and ors. (supra) was not a case in which candidates for employment in a Government Department, were the petitioners. Two questions arose in the case for consideration of the Supreme Court viz. (i) Whether an `establishment in the public sector or an establishment in the private sector as defined in the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 may make appointments to posts to which the Act applies, of persons not sponsored by the Employment Exchanges? and (ii) Whether the Act covers Government Establishments also? (6). The High Court had held that the Act had no application to Government establishments and that the Act casts no obligation either on the pub- lic sector establishment or on the private sector establishment to make the appointments from amongst candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges only and that any insistence that candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges alone should be appointed would be contary to the right guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (7). The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court held on the first point that the object of the Act is not to restrict, but to enlarge the field of choice so that the employer may choose the best and most efficient and to provide an opportunity to the worker to have his claim for appointment considered without the worker having to knock at every door for employ- ment. The Act therefore, does not oblige any employer to employ those persons only who have been sponsored by the Employment Exchanges. On the question of constitutional validity of such instructions, it was held that the instructions issued by the Government departments that the field of choice should, in the first instance, be restricted to candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges does not offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It was further observed that the object of recruitment to any service or post is to secure the most suitable person who answers the demands of the requirements of the job. In the case of public employment, it is necessary to eliminate arbitrariness and favouritism and introduce uni- formity of standards and orderliness in the matter of employment. There has to be an element of procedural fairness in recruitment. In the case of public employment, it is necessary to eliminate arbitrariness and favouritism and introduce uni- formity of standards and orderliness in the matter of employment. There has to be an element of procedural fairness in recruitment. If a public employee chooses to receive applications for employment where and when he pleases, and chooses to make appointments as he likes, a grave element of arbitrariness is certainly introduced. This must necessarily be avoided if Articles 14 and 16 have to be given any meaning. It was lastly observed that in the absence of a better method of recruitment any restriction that employment in government departments should be through the medium of Employment Exchanges does not offend Articles 14 and 16. (8). In the advertisement in the newspapers through which the peti- tioners came to know of the procedure adopted, reference has been made to an order of the Government dated September, 1, 1993. This order has been produced by the Government as Annexure R/1. The Order only states that Order dated January 29,1990 by which the compulsion of calling names of candidates through Employment Exchanges was done away with was cancelled with immediate effect and the earlier procedure of calling the names from Employment Exchanges and selection of candidates from amongst the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges was again made effective. (9). This Order dated January 29,1990 was not filed with the petition but was got produced during the course of arguments. The Order sets out the procedure to be adopted for recruitment in the departments in which it was compulsory to recruit persons from amongst candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges. The procedure did not require calling of names of candidates from Employment Exchanges. (10). The learned counsel for the State produced a copy of the Circular dated May 15,1975 issued by the Deputy Secretary to all the Heads of the Departments which is the only document placed before me on behalf of the Government as an authority for adopting the procedure of calling names from the Employment Exchanges and selecting candidates from amongst candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges alone. The Circular is reproduced here under: ``Copy of Circular No.F.11(8)L&E/75 dated 15th May, 1975 from Deputy Secretary to the Government, Labour & Employment Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur to all Heads of Department, Rajasthan. The Circular is reproduced here under: ``Copy of Circular No.F.11(8)L&E/75 dated 15th May, 1975 from Deputy Secretary to the Government, Labour & Employment Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur to all Heads of Department, Rajasthan. Cases seeking permission to notify the vacancies in the news papers by way of advertisements are being referred to this de- partment in order to invite applications from suitable candidates for vacancies arising in the various departments. In this connection attention is invited to the provisions of compulsory notification of vacancies act keeping in view the general policy all such vacancies arising in the departments should continue to be notified to the Employment Exchanges for giving due consideration to the candidates submitted by various Employment Exchanges. In case local Employment agency is unable to provide persons suited for the jobs information should be sent to the Director of Employment who will make available candidates from other Distt. Employment Exchanges. After he fails to do it then advertisement media could be resorted to, such a step would be appreciated for enforcement of compulsory notification of vacancies act and in the interest of unemployed person of the State. No appointments should be made by any other method. (11). The question is whether in the circumstances of these cases, the aforesaid procedure can be said to be violative of Articles 14 an 16 of the Constitution of India or can be said to be otherwise illegal. (12). It is no doubt true that the Supreme Court in U.O.I. vs. N. Hargopal & others (supra), held that if the Government directs that employment in its department would be through Employment Exchange, such a direction could not be ex-facie unconstitutional on the ground of being violative of Articles 14 an 16 of the Constitution. But in the same judgment, it has been categorically observed that the Government is at perfect liberty to issue instructions to its own departments and organisations provided the instructions do not contravene any constitutional provision or any statute. (13). The validity of adopting the procedure of recruitment by selection of candidates from amongst candidates sponsored by Employment Exchanges in cases where the recruitment is governed by rules framed under Art. 309 of the constitution of India was not before the Supreme Court and therefore, the question is still open. (14). (13). The validity of adopting the procedure of recruitment by selection of candidates from amongst candidates sponsored by Employment Exchanges in cases where the recruitment is governed by rules framed under Art. 309 of the constitution of India was not before the Supreme Court and therefore, the question is still open. (14). In fact the Supreme Court has stated that Government instructions to adopt the procedure of recruitment through Employment Exchanges would be perfectly all right if they did not contravene any constitutional or statutory provisions. It will therefore have to be decided as to whether the procedure of selection of candidates from amongst candi- dates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges adopted by the respondents is in accordance with the recruitment Rules. If the instructions are against the Rules, the decision in U.O.I. vs. N. Hargopal (supra) would not save them from being declared illegal and unconstitutional. (15). The Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 pro- vide in Chapter-IV, the procedure for direct recruitment. Rule 16 provides for inviting applications by the Commissioner or the Appointing Authority, as the case may be, by advertising vacancies to be filled in the official Gazette or in such other manner as may be deemed fit. Rule 17 provides for Form of application and fixing of the fees for the application forms. Rule 18 provides for application of fees which is to be fixed by the appointing authority. Rule 19 provides for scrutiny of applications in order to prepare a list of candidates to be called for interview. Rule 20 provides for the preparation of list of candidates suitable for appointment to be arranged in order of merit by the Selection Committee as also for preparation of reserve list. Rule 21 provides for disqualifications for appointments and Rule 22 provides for preparation of final list of selected candidates by the appointing authority. (16). The petitioners in these case contend that the procedure of calling the names from Employment Exchanges and selecting candidates rom amongst the sponsored candidates does not fit in the scheme of procedure for direct recruitment provided by the Rules. Primarily, the objection is that Rule 16 is violated by not issuing any advertisement in the official Gazette or in the local newspapers and that the number of vacancies are not disclosed. (17). It would be convenient for the discussion on the point to reproduce the first part of Rule 16. Primarily, the objection is that Rule 16 is violated by not issuing any advertisement in the official Gazette or in the local newspapers and that the number of vacancies are not disclosed. (17). It would be convenient for the discussion on the point to reproduce the first part of Rule 16. It reads as under: ``R.16. Inviting of applications- Applications for direct recruitment to posts in the Service shall be invited by the Commission or the Appointing Authority as the case may be, by advertising vacancies to be filled in the official Gazette or in such other manner as may be deemed fit. (18). A bare reading of the aforesaid provision shows that the words ``in such other manner as may be deemed fit only govern the manner of advertising the vacancies and do not give option in the matter of inviting applications. The advertisement may be published in the official Gazette or the vacancies may be advertised in any other manner. But it is a must to invite applications for direct recruitment by advertising vacancies. The option is only as to whether the advertising of vacancies is to be done by publishing the same in the official Gazette or has to be done in any other manner deemed fit. The choice is only restricted to manner of advertisement of vacancies. In the matter of inviting applications and advertising the same, there is no choice. The applications have to be invited and the vacancies have to be advertised whether in the official Gazette or in any other manner which may be deemed fit. (19). The procedure adopted by the respondents gives a complete go by to the requirement of Rule 16 of inviting applications for direct recruitment by advertising the vacancies in the official Gazette or in any other manner. No one knows as to how many vacancies are to be filled in by direct recruitment and no one is invited to apply for direct recruitment under the Rules. The candidates have a right to know the number of vacancies and to an invitation to apply for the same. The advertisement issued in the newspapers invites application from candidates belonging to reservated categories. The candidates have a right to know the number of vacancies and to an invitation to apply for the same. The advertisement issued in the newspapers invites application from candidates belonging to reservated categories. The only information about recruitment of posts falling in general category given in this advertisement is that names from Employment Exchanges have been called and names sponsored by the Employment Exchange only will be considered and call letters will be sent to the candidates selected for interview. This information cannot be said to be inviting applications for specific number of vacancies. This is only information about what has already been done and no information about something which is going to be done in future so that any candidate who has not been registered in the Employment Exchange can get his name registered and sponsored. The procedure adopted therefore is clearly in violation of Rule 16 of the Recruitment Rules. When it is clear that under Rule 16, applications have not been invited and the vacancies have not been advertised, there is no question of complying with Rules 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22. There is no knowing whether Rule 21 prescribing disqualification would also be applied or not. The procedure adopted is therefore clearly against the provisions in the Recruitment Rules framed under Art. 309 of the Constitution. The decision in Union of India VS. N. Hargopal (supra) does not save such an action from being illegal and unconstitutional. (20). Apart from the violation of Rules framed under Art. 309 of the Constitution of India, the impugned procedure can be said to be unconsti- tutional, illegal and unfair on other grounds also. There are no guidelines as regards the procedure to be adopted by the Employment Exchanges in preparing the list for sponsoring candidates to the department. It is not necessary that the Employment Exchanges sponsor candidates in accordance with their merit because the Employment Exchanges have no machi- nery to test the merit of the candidates. Even if, that is done by the Employment Exchanges, it would be converting the Employment Exchange into a Selection Board without any authority of law. It has been stated in the reply by the respondents that Employment Exchanges were asked to sponsor candidates in the ratio of 1:20 i.e. twenty candidates per vacancy. Even if, that is done by the Employment Exchanges, it would be converting the Employment Exchange into a Selection Board without any authority of law. It has been stated in the reply by the respondents that Employment Exchanges were asked to sponsor candidates in the ratio of 1:20 i.e. twenty candidates per vacancy. The num- ber of candidates available is admittedly higher than the ratio of 1:20 The Employment Exchange therefore has to select twenty candidates per vacancy from amongst of large number of candidates. If no standard norm or procedure is prescribed for uniform application requiring the Employment Exchanges to select candidates in a particular manner different yardsticks may be followed in different Employment Exchanges which would be unfair, arbitrary and discriminatory. (21). It appears that the Employment Exchanges have been sponsoring candidates on the basis of the duration of their registration with the Employment Exchanges. Adoption of this procedure also is fraught with many indiscripancies. It is not necessary that the list of candidates arranged in chronological order of date of enrolment, would reflect the duration of the period of unemployment of a person. There may be cases when candidates who have enrolled in other Employment Exchanges, get their names dele- ted from the earlier Employment Exchange. Only because he is registered afresh with a new Employment Exchange, the candidate looses his seniority in the list of unemployed candidates. This method of selection has no nexus with the object of selection which in all cases can only be selection of the best candidates amongst available. The duration of unemployment may be in given circumstances a consideration for preference but it cannot be the sole criteria for judging the suitability of a candidate for a job. (22). The procedure also attracts a very serious objection. In the Scheme of things, a candidate for employment is expected to be enrolled in a District Employment Exchange. For recruitment to Class-III/Class-II posts in a particular District/Division names from an Employment Exchange of that particular District/Division are being called. This means candidates from the particular District/Division would only be considered for employment in that District/ Division. Recruitment to the service cannot be allowed to be done on District or Division basis. The recruitment Rules do not pro- vide for any reservation on the basis of residence in a particular area. This means candidates from the particular District/Division would only be considered for employment in that District/ Division. Recruitment to the service cannot be allowed to be done on District or Division basis. The recruitment Rules do not pro- vide for any reservation on the basis of residence in a particular area. The procedure adopted results in reservation of 100% posts in a District or Division in favour of candidates residing in that District or Division. This is neither intended nor provided by the Rules. It is also arbitrary and discriminatory as it would not only reduce the scope of employment of a candidate from State level to District/Division level but would also result in selection of less meritorious candidates in District where the number of candidates enrolled with Employment Exchanges is lesser. Moreover, when on appointment the candidate gets into a State service with a transferable job and can be transferred anywhere in the State, selection on District/Division level would be absured and lead to many malpractice like getting enrolled in the Employment Exchange of a backward District with a greater employment potential, getting selected there because of lesser competition and then getting transferred to a prize posting in an advanced urban area of the State. (23). For the aforesaid reasons, the procedure adopted by the aforesaid reasons, the procedure adopted by the respondents of selecting candidates for appointment to the posts of Teachers/ Laboratory Assistants/Librarians/Physical Training Instructors from amongst only such candidates as are sponsored by the Employment Exchange is clearly violative of Rules framed under Art. 309 of the Constitution and is illegal, descriminatory and arbitary and therefore, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (24). The petitions are allowed. The directions of the respondents as regards filling in vacancies in the posts in general category of Teachers/Laboratory Assistants/Librarians/Physical Training Instructors from amongst candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges are qua- shed. The respondents are directed to initiate the process afresh by following the procedure prescribed by the Recruitment Rules. (15). There shall be no order as to costs.