Judgment :- 1. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge the Rule 10-A(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules insofar as it restricts the recruitment only by calling for names from the employment exchange is ultra vires, unconstitutional and hit by Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and for a consequential direction to the respondents to recruit the secondary grade teachers by inviting applications from all the eligible candidates through advertisements in the newspapers having wider circulation. 2. It is seen from the records that the petitioners originally got admitted to the unrecognised teacher training institute in the year 1993 and finally, through the concession given by the Government got into the recognised teacher training institute. They have passed their diploma during the year 2008. They have also got their names registered in the employment exchange. But, however aggrieved by the notification issued by the Teacher Recruitment Board for calling for applications in respect of 1394 posts of secondary grade teachers, the petitioners have rushed to this court. In that advertisements dated 09.11.2011, in paragraph 10, it was stated that the selection will be made based on communal reservation and the date of registration in the employment exchange and that seniority of registration will be considered strictly. According to the petitioner, this is based upon Rule 10-A(a), wherein and by which eligible candidates are called only from the employment exchange. The petitioners wanted all candidates' names to be considered. For that, he seeks for a direction also to give advertisement in the newspapers and to that extent, the rule restricted the authority from considering the qualified persons. Hence the rule is ultra vires. 3. In this context, the petitioners relied upon the following three judgments: a) KrishanChander Nayar Vs. The Chairman, Central Tractor Organisation and others reported in AIR 1962 SC 602 . b) Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. Vs. K.B.N.Visweshwara Rao and others reported in (1996) 6 SCC 216 . c) RabindraNath Mahata Vs. State of West Bengal and others reported in 2005 (5) CTC 161 (FB) (Cal.) 4. However, before proceeding to deal with the merits of the petitioners' case, it must be noted that till the year 2008, the State Government had recruited secondary grade teachers only by sponsorship of names from the District level employment exchange. c) RabindraNath Mahata Vs. State of West Bengal and others reported in 2005 (5) CTC 161 (FB) (Cal.) 4. However, before proceeding to deal with the merits of the petitioners' case, it must be noted that till the year 2008, the State Government had recruited secondary grade teachers only by sponsorship of names from the District level employment exchange. A division bench of this court presided by P.K.Misra, J. (as he then was) in Unemployed Secondary Grade Teachers Welfare Association Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in2008 (4) LLN 560 has held that recruitment through district level employment exchange was not valid and that recruitment should be based on State level employment exchange. Therefore, the matter was taken to the Supreme Court by the aggrieved parties. The Supreme Court while entertaining the SLP(C) Nos.18227 and 18228 of 2008 had granted leave on 20.08.2008, but declined to grant stay of the division bench order. On the other hand, the Supreme Court held that the State Government should follow the Statewide seniority in the employment exchange while appointing secondary grade teachers by calling for the list of eligible persons from all the District employment exchanges and by newspaper advertisement. This order will bind the appellants who had filed the appeal. 5. The State Government pursuant to the direction issued by the Supreme Court had issued a consequential Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education Department, dated 15.11.2011. In paragraphs 5 and 7 of the order, it was stated as follows: "5.In the G.O. 1st read above, orders have been issued as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 20.8.2008 in SLP (c)No.18227 – 18228/2008 that the State Government should follow the Statewide seniority in employment registration while appointing Secondary Grade Teachers by calling for the list of eligible persons from all the District Employment Exchanges and by newspaper Public Advertisements throughout the State. The Supreme Court has further directed that the aforesaid arrangement will apply for any recruitment to be made pending disposal of these appeals. 7. The Government carefully examined on the lines of the orders of Supreme Court of India in SLP(c) No.18227 – 18228 dated 20.8.2008 and National Council for Teacher Education guidelines and issue the following orders in respect of change of policy for recruitment of Secondary Grade and B.T. Teachers. 7. The Government carefully examined on the lines of the orders of Supreme Court of India in SLP(c) No.18227 – 18228 dated 20.8.2008 and National Council for Teacher Education guidelines and issue the following orders in respect of change of policy for recruitment of Secondary Grade and B.T. Teachers. i. In respect of Secondary Grade Teachers, the statewide seniority in Employment Exchange Registration will continue to be followed till the disposal of the SLP filed in the Supreme Court of India. ii. In respect of Graduate Assistants (B.T. Teachers recruited by TRB for the Classes VI to X) in all middle schools, High/Higher Secondary Schools, selection through written examinations ("Teacher Eligibility Test") in accordance with the guidelines framed by National Council for Teacher Education and certificate verification, will be followed. iii. The Teachers Recruitment Board is designate as the Nodal Agency for conducting of Teacher Eligibility Test and recruitment of Teachers." (Emphasis added) 6. Therefore, the understanding of the State Government was that since the Supreme Court has seized of the matter, the practice of recruitment through employment exchange by the State level seniority will be followed. It is at this stage, the petitioners have come to this court impugning the rule. 7. First of all, it must be noted that the State Government is not averse to recruit people both from the employment exchange and by calling newspaper advertisement in the case of secondary grade teachers. As the matter is seized by the Supreme Court, the Government order only talks about the adhoc arrangement. The Supreme Court in Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi Admn., reported in (1992) 4 SCC 99 had emphasised the need to recruit through employment exchange and to avoid other persons getting recruited at the cost of persons who are waiting in employment exchanges. In paragraph 23, the Supreme Court had observed as follows: "23.Apart from the fact that the petitioners cannot be directed to be regularised for the reasons given above, we may take note of the pernicious consequences to which the direction for regularisation of workmen on the only ground that they have put in work for 240 or more days, has been leading. Although there is an Employment Exchange Act‡ which requires recruitment on the basis of registration in the Employment Exchange, it has become a common practice to ignore the Employment Exchange and the persons registered in the Employment Exchanges, and to employ and get employed directly those who are either not registered with the Employment Exchange or who though registered are lower in the long waiting list in the Employment Register. The courts can take judicial notice of the fact that such employment is sought and given directly for various illegal considerations including money. The employment is given first for temporary periods with technical breaks to circumvent the relevant rules, and is continued for 240 or more days with a view to give the benefit of regularisation knowing the judicial trend that those who have completed 240 or more days are directed to be automatically regularised. A good deal of illegal employment market has developed resulting in a new source of corruption and frustration of those who are waiting at the Employment Exchanges for years. Not all those who gain such backdoor entry in the employment are in need of the particular jobs. Though already employed elsewhere, they join the jobs for better and secured prospects. That is why most of the cases which come to the courts are of employment in government departments, public undertakings or agencies. Ultimately it is the people who bear the heavy burden of the surplus labour. The other equally injurious effect of indiscriminate regularisation has been that many of the agencies have stopped undertaking casual or temporary works though they are urgent and essential for fear that if those who are employed on such works are required to be continued for 240 or more days they have to be absorbed as regular employees although the works are time-bound and there is no need of the workmen beyond the completion of the works undertaken. The public interests are thus jeopardised on both counts." 8. This judgment was quoted with approval by a later judgment of the Supreme Court in Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and others reported in (2008) 10 SCC 1 . 9. On the importance of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959, the Supreme Court in Principal, Mehar Chand Polytechnic v. Anu Lamba reported in (2006) 7 SCC 161 had observed in paragraphs 16 and 17 as follows: "16. Dayanand and others reported in (2008) 10 SCC 1 . 9. On the importance of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959, the Supreme Court in Principal, Mehar Chand Polytechnic v. Anu Lamba reported in (2006) 7 SCC 161 had observed in paragraphs 16 and 17 as follows: "16. Public employment is a facet of right to equality envisaged under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The State although is a model employer, its right to create posts and recruit people therefor emanates from the statutes or statutory rules and/or rules framed under the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The recruitment rules are framed with a view to give equal opportunity to all the citizens of India entitled for being considered for recruitment in the vacant posts. 17. Parliament for giving effect to the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution enacted the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959......” 10. The Supreme Court in Man Singh v. Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri reported in (2009) 11 SCC 448 has held that a name of candidates can be sponsored only when his turn comes and not prior thereto. In paragraphs 12 and 13, it was observed as follows: "12. The respondent had filled up the vacancies in terms of the Rules. Furthermore, the appellant's name was not sponsored by the employment exchange. He might have got himself registered in the employment exchange but in absence of any proof that his name was sponsored by the employment exchange, the same could not have been considered. 13. The employment exchange sponsors the names of the candidates in terms of the provisions laid down in the employment exchange manual. The employment exchange authorities are bound to sponsor the names in accordance with seniority. Names of a candidate can be sponsored only when his turn comes and not prior thereto. (See ArunTewari v. ZilaMansavi Shikshak Sangh and AvtarSingh Hit v. DelhiSikh Gurdwara Management Committee.)" 11. The petitioners having got their names registered in the employment exchange in the year 2008-2009 for teaching vacancy, cannot by ingenious method challenge the statutory rule framed by the State Government. The State Government cannot be said to be violative of any constitutional principle. (See ArunTewari v. ZilaMansavi Shikshak Sangh and AvtarSingh Hit v. DelhiSikh Gurdwara Management Committee.)" 11. The petitioners having got their names registered in the employment exchange in the year 2008-2009 for teaching vacancy, cannot by ingenious method challenge the statutory rule framed by the State Government. The State Government cannot be said to be violative of any constitutional principle. In this context, it is necessary to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. N. Hargopal reported in (1987) 3 SCC 308 , wherein the Supreme Court did not find the procedure for recruiting candidates through sponsorship by employment exchange as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In paragraph 9, the Supreme Court had observed as follows: "9.The further question is whether the instructions issued by the government that in the case of government departments the field of choice should, in the first instance, be restricted to candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Shri P. Parmeshwara Rao, learned Counsel appearing for some of the respondents strenuously urged that such a restriction would offend the equality clauses of the Constitution, namely, Articles 14 and 16. He urged that when Parliament had gone into the question and decided that there should be no compulsion in the matter of appointment by way of restriction of the field of choice, it was not open to the Government to impose such compulsion. He argued that it would be unreasonable to restrict the field of choice to those sponsored by the Employment Exchanges. In a country so vast as India, in a country where there was so much poverty, illiteracy and ignorance, it was not right that employment opportunities should necessarily be channelled through the Employment Exchanges when it is not shown that the network of Employment Exchanges is so wide, that it reaches all the corners of this vast country. He argued that it is futile to expect that persons living in distant places could get themselves registered with Employment Exchanges situated far away. The submission of Shri Parmeshwara Rao is indeed appealing and attractive. Nonetheless, we are afraid we cannot uphold it. 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. The submission of Shri Parmeshwara Rao is indeed appealing and attractive. Nonetheless, we are afraid we cannot uphold it. 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 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 Articles 14 and 16 have to be given any meaning. We, therefore, consider that insistence on recruitment through Employment Exchanges advances rather than restricts the rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The submission that Employment Exchanges do not reach everywhere applies equally to whatever method of advertising vacancies is adopted. Advertisement in the daily press, for example, is also equally ineffective as it does not reach everyone desiring employment. In the absence of a better method of recruitment, we think that any restriction that employment in government departments should be through the medium of employment exchanges does not offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. With this modification of the judgment of the High Court, the appeals and the special leave petitions are disposed of. No orders are necessary in the writ petition." 12. In the light of the above, this court do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned rule as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Hence the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.