K. S. JHAVERI, J. ( 1 ) MR. Jhaveri for the petitioner seeks permission to implead 19 employees as respondent Nos. 2 to 20. Permission granted. Notice of Rule is waived by Mr. Desai on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 20. ( 2 ) WITH the consent of both the sides, the matter is taken up for final hearing. ( 3 ) THE short facts of the case are that, the Market Committee had resolved for recruitment of certain staff as per the Resolution dtd. 3. 6. 1993 and thereafter, it is the case of the Market Committee that, the public advertisement was given in "aam JANTA" newspaper on 7th June 1993. The case of the Market Committee is that pursuant to the advertisement given in the aforesaid newspaper, the interested candidates applied and the selection had taken place and thereafter, on 15. 6. 1993, the orders for appointment of the staff were issued by the Chairman of the Market Committee upon the selection made by the Selection Committee. ( 4 ) ON 1. 9. 1993, the Sub-Regional Employment Exchange Officer, Mehsana, addressed a letter to the Secretary of the Market Committee, that, the recruitment has taken place without intimating the office of the Employment Exchange Officer and therefore, the employees who have been recruited should immediately be terminated and the copy of the said letter was also forwarded by the Employment Exchange Officer, to the Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Financing, Gandhinagar and also to the District Registrar, Mehsana. ( 5 ) ON 24. 9. 1993, the Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Financing, instructed the Market Committee immediately to terminate those 19 employees of the Market Committee who were recruited pursuant to the aforesaid recruitment process without intimating to the Employment Exchange. The stand of the Employment Exchange as well as of the Director of the Agricultural Marketing was that, on 27. 2. 1992, the circular was issued by the Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Financing to all the Market Committees, that whenever the recruitments are to be made, the names should be called for from the Employment Exchange and thereafter, only the recruitment process should be undertaken. ( 6 ) THE petitioner Market Committee under these circumstances, has preferred this petition for challenging the order dtd. 24th Sept. 1993 passed by the Director and also the cancellation letter of the Employment Exchange Officer dtd. ( 6 ) THE petitioner Market Committee under these circumstances, has preferred this petition for challenging the order dtd. 24th Sept. 1993 passed by the Director and also the cancellation letter of the Employment Exchange Officer dtd. 1. 9. 1993. ( 7 ) ON behalf of the petitioner Market Committee it has been submitted that, it is not the case wherein the Market Committee has undertaken recruitment process without giving any public advertisement and since the public advertisement was given, the interested persons have applied and the regular selection has taken place. It is submitted on behalf of the Market Committee that, it is not mandatory on the part of the Market Committee to call for the names from the Employment Exchange, more particularly, when the intention is to give opportunity to all interested persons. It is submitted on behalf of the Market Committee that, since the recruitment had taken place after publication of the advertisement, it cannot be said that, the procedure undertaken for recruitment of the employees of the Market Committee is illegal and the Market Committee cannot be directed to terminate the services of all these employees who have been appointed after undertaking regular selection process by issuing public advertisement. ( 8 ) ON behalf of the State Government and the Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Financing, Ld. AGP submitted that, the circular was issued way back on 22. 2. 1992, instructing that, the recruitment process should be undertaken by intimating to the Employment Exchange and after calling names from the Employment Exchange. But admittedly, the said procedure is not undertaken by the Market Committee. It is also submitted that, merely because the advertisement is given, the same would not relieve the Market Committee from their obligation to call for the names from the Employment Exchange. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent Authority that, there may be so many persons who were waiting for their turn in the Employment Exchange and they have been deprived of the opportunity to apply for the post in question and therefore, the order passed by the Director, dtd. 24. 9. 1993 is in accordance with law and it cannot be said that the Director has committed any illegality. ( 9 ) ON behalf of the employees concerned, Mr. 24. 9. 1993 is in accordance with law and it cannot be said that the Director has committed any illegality. ( 9 ) ON behalf of the employees concerned, Mr. Desai submitted that, since the proper procedure was already undertaken by the Market Committee, it cannot be said that the appointments are illegal merely because the names were not called from the Employment Exchange. ( 10 ) IT cannot be denied that the Market Committee is not a Statutory Authority. As per the provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Committees Act, it is also to be treated as local authority and intention is to put the status of the Market Committee at par with the other Local Authorities. Therefore, the employment in the Market Committee can be said to be public employment, In the case of Union of India and Ors. vs. N. Hargopal and Ors. reported in 1987 (3) SCC p. 308, wherein it has been observed by the Apex Court that, the object of the 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, favouratism, and introduce uniformity of standards and orderliness, in the matter of employment. There has to be an element of procedural fairness in recruitment. If a public employer 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 Article 14 and 16 have to be given any meaning. The submission that, Employment Exchange do not reach everywhere applies equally to whatever method of advertising vacancies is adopted. In the absence of a better method of recruitment, and restriction that employment in government departments should be through the medium of employment exchange does not offend Articles 14 and 16. ( 11 ) IN view of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, it cannot be said that the method of calling for the names from the Employment Exchange is in any manner arbitrary or unreasonable. ( 11 ) IN view of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, it cannot be said that the method of calling for the names from the Employment Exchange is in any manner arbitrary or unreasonable. The said aspect is in the present case coupled with the fact that there was specific instruction on the part of the Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Financing, to all the Market Committees including the petitioner Market Committee, to call for the names from the Employment Exchange and to undertake the recruitment process. Therefore, it can be said that, the procedure for calling for the names from the employment exchange is not undertaken by the Market Committee. ( 12 ) THE perusal of the stand taken by the Market Committee further shows that the Market Committee has not invited the applications by any other mode, i. e. by way of public advertisement. It is the case of the Market Committee that, the public advertisement was given in the newspaper and the applications were invited and thereafter, the recruitment process was undertaken and the appointment orders were issued. Since the another one of the substitute mode was undertaken by the Market Committee for the purpose of the staff i. e. by way of public advertisement it cannot be said that the recruitment process was undertaken in such fashion which would call for the occasion of termination of the services of the concerned employees and there is no allegation of favouratism in appointment or any other such irregularity. Therefore, I am of the view that the directions, if given for terminating the services of the employees merely on the ground that the names were not called for from the Employment Exchange would not be proper. ( 13 ) AT this stage, it will not also be out of place to refer the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Excise Supdt. , Malkapatnam, Vs. K. B. N. Visweshwara Rao and Ors. reported in 1996 (6) SCC p. 216. wherein at para 6 the Apex Court has observed as under:-"having regard to the respective contentions, we are of the view that, contention of the respondents is more acceptable which would be consistent with the principles of fair play, justice and equal opportunity. , Malkapatnam, Vs. K. B. N. Visweshwara Rao and Ors. reported in 1996 (6) SCC p. 216. wherein at para 6 the Apex Court has observed as under:-"having regard to the respective contentions, we are of the view that, contention of the respondents is more acceptable which would be consistent with the principles of fair play, 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 came to be sponsored by the employment Exchange. Under these circumstances, many a deserving candidate is deprived of the right to be considered for appointment to a post under the State. Better view appears to be that, it should be mandatory for the requisitioning authority/establishment to intimate the employment exchange, and employment exchange should sponsor the names of the candidates to the requisitioning department for selection strictly according to seniority and reservation, as per requisition. In addition, the appropriate department or undertaking or establishment should call for the names by publication in the newspapers having wider circulation and also display on their office notice boards or announce on radio, television, and employment news bulletins and then consider the cases of all the candidates who have applied. if this procedure is adopted, fair play would be subserved. The equality of opportunity in the matter of employment would be available to all eligible candidates. " ( 14 ) IN view of the above, while observing that the action of giving directions to the Market Committee to terminate the services of all these 19 employees is not legal and proper. This Court would also like to observe that, for the mode of recruitment in the Market Committee, the names should be called for from the employment exchange and in addition thereto, the public advertisement should also be given minimum in 2 newspapers having wide circulation in the area so that all interested persons can participate and Market Committee may have choice to appoint the best available talent. ( 15 ) IT is hoped that, the Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Financing, will issue appropriate instructions to all the Market Committees for undertaking the such recruitment process strictly by adopting the aforesaid 2 modes viz. to call for the names from the Employment Exchange and also by public advertisement. ( 16 ) IN the result, the order passed by the Director for giving instruction to the Market Committee for terminating the services of all the 19 employees who are joined as respondent Nos. 2 to 20, is quashed. With the clarification indicated above, the petition shall stand allowed to the aforesaid extend. There shall be no orders as to cost. .