ORDER: This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the fifth respondent, to publish the notification published by them in English Daily newspaper The New Indian Express, Chennai Edition dated 23.12.2003, inviting applications for the post of Seamen (Saloon Utility Hand, Deck Utility Hand & Utility Steward), apart from other posts also in Tamil Language. 2. The fifth respondent Corporation has given an advertisement in The New Indian Express dated 23.12.2003, inviting applications for the post of officers as well as Seamen of the lowest category. 3. More or less a common affidavit has been filed in support of this Writ Petition and another Writ Petition, seeking for a writ of declaration, to declare the Amendment Act 63 of 2002 by Merchant Shipping (Amendment) Act, 2002 w.e.f., 1.2.2003, deleting Sec.95(2) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, as illegal and is in violation of Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and unconstitutional. So far as the above said writ of declaration is concerned, it is not taken up along with this case. 4. Mr. N. G. R. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that highly placed staff are reading English papers but it may not be the case of the Seamen, who are educated in Tamil medium and that the notification has escaped the attention of all Seamen, who are members of the petitioner union, including the second petitioner. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner got information of the said advertisement by chance and, hence, they have filed this writ petition, seeking for the relief mentioned above. 5. Mr. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner got information of the said advertisement by chance and, hence, they have filed this writ petition, seeking for the relief mentioned above. 5. Mr. Prasad further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. v. K.B.N. Visweshawara Rao and others Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. v. K.B.N. Visweshawara Rao and others Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. v. K.B.N. Visweshawara Rao and others (1996)6 S.C.C. 216 , has emphasised that apart from Employment Exchange, wide publicity should be given so that all eligible candidates would apply and the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court has not been followed by the fifth respondent, while issuing the impugned notification for various posts, including Seamen (Utility Hand) last grade staff in an English newspaper without publication in local Tamil dailies which alone will reach the candidates like the second petitioner for the said posts; the fifth respondent has not published the said advertisement in local Tamil dailies, as a result of which, most of them, seeking employment, were unable to apply in time, as the last date for submission of applications was 2.1.2004, but the petitioners have come to know about the said advertisement only on 2.2.2004. 6. Per contra, Mrs. 6. Per contra, Mrs. Chitra Sampath, learned counsel for the fifth respondent, relying on the counter, has submitted that first respondent is a registered union in West Bengal, however, not aware of the registration and information of the said union in Tamil Nadu; the first petitioner is not a recognised union by the Director General of Shipping, Mumbai, and also not a member of International Trade Federation, which gives recognition to trade unions, espousing the cause of the seamen; for the recruitment and employment of any category of seamen, it is absolutely essential that they possess Continuous Discharge Certificate (CDC); in order to make them eligible to get he said CDC from the Shipping Master, they have to produce four certificates called as STCW Certificates i.e., (i) Elementary First Aid (EFA), (ii) Personal Safety and Social Responsibility (PSSR), (iii) Personal Survival Techniques (PST) and (iv) Fire Prevention and Fire Fighting (EPFF); the said certificates are issued only to such of those persons, who have acquaintenance with English, because all the examinations for getting these certificates are conducted only in English; So, unless persons possess knowledge of English language, it will not be possible for them to pass over the examinations; travelling in shipping involves crossing of international maritime zone; it is incumbent upon all shipping companies and also the countries to follow the international safety management, prescribed for all the countries; the crew on the Board of ship is drawn from various walks of life and from countries and territories; the language on Board is only English; the commands are issued only in English; communication between the ship and the land is also only in English and the recruitment for the fifth respondent Corporation also involves travelling to foreign countries and unless the selectors or seamen are conversant with English, they are not fit for the said jobs. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that they made advertisement only in English language through out India and that if the version of advertisement is in each vernacular language, it would involve more finance commitment. 7. It is not disputed by the petitioner that for the category of Seamen, Continuous Discharge Certificate (CDC) is required. The impugned notification was for various posts, including Seamen. 7. It is not disputed by the petitioner that for the category of Seamen, Continuous Discharge Certificate (CDC) is required. The impugned notification was for various posts, including Seamen. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphasised his argument to the extent that the advertisement in English mostly affected the eligible persons, who intended to apply for the posts of Seamen, but for other categories of posts, no argument is placed. It is also not in dispute that in order to get CDC, a person is required to produce four certificates, namely, (i) Elementary First Aid (EFA), (ii) Personal Safety and Social Responsibility (PSSR), (iii) Personal Survival Techniques (PST) and (iv) Fire Prevention and Fire Fighting (EPFF). The tests relating to four certificates are conducted only in English. 8. It is further seen from the records that similar English version advertisement was made in Tamil newspapers like Dina Thanthi. A Seaman is required to travel through out the world. Similarly, the recruitment is made an national level, to meet any contingencies, including interaction with other seamen as well as other personnel in every walk of life either in India or other countries. 9. In the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. v. K.B.N. Visweshawara Rao and others Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. v. K.B.N.Visweshawara Rao and others Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. v. K.B.N. Visweshawara Rao and others (1996)6 S.C.C. 216 , restriction of selection only to the candidates sponsored by Employment Exchange was held as not proper and observed that wide publication in newspapers would sub-serve fair play. The recruitment in this case is not in large numbers as in the said case. Hence, the said judgment cannot be made applicable to this case. The contention of the fifth respondent is definitely consistent with the principles of fair play. 10. In Union of India v. N. Harigopal and others Union of India v. N. Harigopal and others Union of India v. N. Harigopal and others (1987)3 S.C.C. 308 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959, held that employers are not bound to appoint only persons, sponsored by Employment Exchange. 11. In the case on hand, the advertisement made in English is a better method, while considering the nature of posts and, no doubt, it would subserve fair play. 12. 11. In the case on hand, the advertisement made in English is a better method, while considering the nature of posts and, no doubt, it would subserve fair play. 12. Hence, I am of the considered view that the advertisement effected in English version is perfectly justified. Moreover, Writ Petition was filed only on 7.2.2004, whereas candidates were called upon to submit their applications within ten days from 23.12.2003. Therefore, it is not incorrect to say that the writ petition is belated. 13. Writ Petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.Ps. are also dismissed. P.V. ----- Petition dismissed.