JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Heard the learned counsel for the parties appearing. 2. Appellant is the party respondent in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed by the writ petitioner, which claimed to be a Self Help Group, feeling aggrieved by the non-selection by the respondent Corporation. Both, the appellant and the writ petitioner, had applied pursuant to the advertisement by the Corporation. The learned Single Judge found that the writ petitioner had never appeared in the selection process. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge proceeded to pass the following observations and directions and, thereafter, dismissed the writ petition:- “3. Be that as it may, there is nevertheless a great question mark as to how and why the Corporation is appointing Line Coolies (whose work is of a regular nature) through a Self Help Group. The Self Help Group is not an association or a Union of these Line Coolies. Under this method, there are further chances of exploitation of workmen. Apparently it appears to be an unfair labour practice. 4. All the same, as the term of the contract with the respondent No.4 comes to an end on 04.08.2014, the Corporation is restrained from making further appointment through a Self Help Group. In case there is a requirement of Line Coolies, they are always at liberty to make fresh appointment through daily rated basis or through contractual basis, but not through a private body of “service providers”.” 3. Feeling aggrieved, appellant is before us. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge ought not to have made those observations. According to him, Self Help Group is working well and constituted by working Line Coolies. The learned Single Judge has proceeded to observe that the Self Help Group is not an association or a Union of these Line Coolies and there are further chances of exploitation of workmen and it apparently appears to be an unfair trade practice; the Corporation is restrained from making any further appointment from the Self Help Group and the Corporation was set at liberty to make fresh appointment through daily rated basis or through contractual basis, but not through a private body of “service providers”. This issue relating to unfair labour practice as such was not projected by the writ petitioner. Its complaint was that it was not selected. The writ petitioner was also a Self Help Group Society. This issue relating to unfair labour practice as such was not projected by the writ petitioner. Its complaint was that it was not selected. The writ petitioner was also a Self Help Group Society. 4. The learned counsel for the Corporation would, in fact, submit that there are circumstances, in which it is advisable to go in for recruitments through Self Help Groups. There are other situations where it may not be advised. It is further submitted that as far as unfair trade practice is concerned, they have a scheme in place for safeguarding the interest of those who are engaged through the Self Help Group. They include lifelong payment of ninety per cent of the salary being paid to the dependants in case of permanent disability or death. 5. We record these submissions and we are of the view that the learned Single Judge ought not to have restrained the Corporation from making appointment through the Self Help Group. We, on the other hand, only observe that it is the Corporation, which is an Authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, which is expected to act fairly, but which must also have a fair play in the joints without committing any unfair trade practice to have a selection process whether it is through Self Help Group or otherwise. 6. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of. The directions of the learned Single Judge made in para 4 of the judgment will stand vacated.